Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also asked to declare whether they have been subject to lobbying from interested parties, if they have carried out any site visits and whether they have predetermined their view on any item to be considered.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

11/1581/FUL - 80 HIGH STREET, HAMPTON HILL

Councillor Fleming declared that she had already formed a view and was pre-determined on this application. She undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.

10/3307/FUL - ROSEDALE HOUSE, ROSEDALE ROAD, RICHMOND

Councillor Fleming declared that she had already formed a view and was pre-determined on this application (she would be speaking as an interested Councillor). She undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of the item.

Councillor Elengorn declared a personal interest in this item by virtue of knowing a resident who lived on Rosedale Road. He had not discussed the application with the resident nor formed a prior view on this item.

11/2298/PS192 - 214 BUCKINGHAM ROAD, HAMPTON

Councillor Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of being the applicant. She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

Councillor Nicholson declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item by virtue of living on Buckingham Road. She undertook to withdraw from the room for the duration of the item.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 7 July 2011 TO FOLLOW.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2011 were agreed as a correct of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them, subject to the following clarification:

Item 10 – Declarations

Councillor Naylor had a personal interest in application11/0741/FUL – 76-80 Heath Road by virtue of the fact that one of the objectors had taught his daughter. He had not previously discussed the application with the objector nor formed a prior view on this item.

Reports of the Development Control Manager attached – see list below.

The recommendations contained in the attached reports are those of the officers and are not binding upon the Committee.

The Chairman will confirm the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there may be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time from 8.30pm.

Change of use from A4 (public house) to A5 (take away), to include ground floor extension to rear. Repositioning of associated plant at roof level. New means of access created to upper flat.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Having declared that she had pre-determined her view, Councillor Fleming withdrew from the Committee.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments and additions to the report via the addendum:

·         Delete last sentence of paragraph 19

·         Additional representations – Since the report was written an additional 75 objections had been received from local residents as well as an objection to the loss of the public house from CAMRA.  A petition objecting to the application with 89 signatures had been submitted.  A spreadsheet indicating the number of parking spaces available in the car park to the rear at certain times of the day had also been submitted.

The location plan for page 1 was corrected as follows:

The Committee heard representations against the application from Mr Morpurgo, Chairman of the Friends of Bushy & Home Parks; Miss Hinning, a neighbour not adjoining the site; and Mr Churcher, a representative of the Hampton Hill Association.

The Committee heard representations from Councillor Cardy and Councillor Eady who spoke as interested Councillors.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. In particular, the following points were discussed and noted:

(i) The Committee was limited in the weight it could give to the parking issues raised by speakers due to the fact that the existing use of the application site as a public house required more parking spaces than that required by a takeaway, according to the Council’s parking standards. It was also noted that policy TRN2 was being superseded.

(ii) If the application was appealed a hearing would not take place before September. By this time the Council’s UDP policy CCE 15 (retention of indoor recreation, cultural and entertainment facilities) would no longer be relevant as it was being replaced by policies within the Development Management Plan. For this reason it was not useful for the Committee to give too much weight to policy CCE 15 in relation to the application.

(iii) Policy DM TC 4 was focused on preserving local shops and public houses outside Local Neighbourhood Centres and Areas of Mixed Use. The application site was within an area of mixed use

(iv) The proposal’s potential impact on traffic movement in the vicinity could be seen as representing an adverse effect on the local amenity and was thus contrary to the Council’s emerging policy DM TC 5, rather than Policy TRN2 which had not previously been identified by the Committee as being of relevance to the application. In addition, the Council’s transport officer had raised no objection to the application in highway terms.

(v) At the previous Committee policy DMOS 4 (bio-diversity) had been discussed but had not been considered as a separate ground for refusal but could be seen as contributing to wider objection of impact on amenity relating to policy DM TC 5.

(vi) The planning permission would not be personal and it was not yet certain which takeaway company would use the site. The Council’s planning policies did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16a

Change of use of the building from offices (class B1) to educational (class D1) for 140 students plus 20 nursery children and/or office (class B1) use and associated external alterations to be in association with the Falcon Preparatory School at 123-125 Kew Road; ground floor extensions to provide a link to adjacent school and educational space; fenestration alterations, new ramp and vent stacks at roof level.

Officer’s recommendation:  REFUSAL

Having declared that she had pre-determined her view, Councillor Fleming withdrew from the Committee.

Councillors Naylor, Elengorn, Linnette and Burford declared that they had visited the site.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments to the report via the addendum:

·         Omit reason NS01 and replace with:

Inadequate provision is proposed to be made for parking, access and drop off and collection of pupils thereby prejudicing the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to policies TRN2 and TRN4 and CCE11 of the Unitary Development Plan: First Review, CP5 of the Core Strategy and DM TP2 and TP8 of the Draft Development Management Plan.

·         Omit reasons for refusal NS04 and NS05 and replace with:

Inadequate provision is proposed to be made for sports, play and recreational facilities thereby resulting in a scheme that fails to provide a suitable quality education facility and play space for the children, and that will result in the unacceptable intensification of the central courtyard, thereby causing undue noise and disturbance to nearby residents to the detriment of their level of amenities. The scheme would therefore be contrary to policies CCE10, CCE11, BLT16 and BLT 30 of the Unitary Development Plan: First Review, CP18 of the Core Strategy and DM DC5 and OS8 of the Draft Development Management Plan.

The following late letters of representation had been received:

Zac Goldsmith – Support for application. Considers that the proposals will be of substantial benefit to the community. They will allow the conversion of an underused building and provide additional school places which the borough needs. The Boys school is thriving and the Girls school is similarly well-regarded and the application has been received warmly by local people.

5 letters had been received in support of the application. The reasons for supporting the application were as follows:

§    Borough needs new schools so this will be a great asset

§    Siting of the school adjacent to the Boys school is ideal for integration and for sharing facilities.

§    Existing boys school has no real impact on traffic within the local area

§    Falcons Boys school has a history of actively encouraging parents not to use cars and advocating public transport, walking or cycling or using school coach and arrangement with Richmond Athletic Association (RAA) to enable drop off means the school has no impact on Kew Foot Road or those surrounding roads.

§    RAA have had their lease with the Crown since 1885 and although it is due to be renewed, they are sure renewal won’t be a problem.

§    RAA have a good relationship with Falcon’s Boys school and are willing to extend this to the Girls school.

§    Relocation would provide a much needed independent girl’s school in the area.

§    Approving application would reduce traffic and encourage cycling to the school.

§    RAA arrangement means that local residents are not affected by congested school runs.

§    Policy of keeping traffic out of the surrounding roads is rigorously enforced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16b

Use of premises as a wine bar (A4 Use Class).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer informed the Committee that there had been no late amendments to the report.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Bertram, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Phelps, the applicant.

The Committee considered the information received and points raised by speakers. It was noted that a main concern of the neighbour addressing the committee related the bottle disposal but that a condition could be imposed which regulated the hours at which this was carried out.

The Committee did not identify any significant potential harm in the application and were satisfied that the conditions proposed would address any amenity concerns.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the following amendment to a condition:

NS03 – after ‘servicing’ insert: ‘including bottle disposal’.

Conversion of the building from the current five flats back to a single family house, including the removal of windows that did not form part of the original dwelling and the restoration of the original front chimneys.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendments to the report via the addendum:

·         Additional condition recommended:

“The external alterations hereby permitted, in particular the removal of the non-original windows and the restoration of the original front chimneys, shall be completed in their entirety before the dwelling house hereby permitted is occupied.

REASON: To ensure that the improvements to the appearance of the building are undertaken in accordance with the terms of the application.

The following correspondence had been received:

·         Representation from occupier of the building, raising the following planning issues (this representation had been circulated directly to Members):

o        A decision on the application should be deferred until the Development Management Plan has been adopted;

o        Querying the status of letters received in support of the application;

o        The report is inaccurate, at para.17, in stating that the units that would be lost are not 1-bedroomed. In fact, two of the units are 1-bedroomed;

o        This is the third application within three years, which is a drain on public money;

o        What weighting is attached to the ‘environmental, street scene, transport and parking benefits’ in comparison to ‘the loss of units’. In particular, how will the parking situation be improved when the existing forecourt can accommodate five cars, but is only used to park to two cars and the proposed house may require space for three cars.

The Committee heard representation against the application from Mr Jacob, a neighbour adjoining the site and Mr Ferris, the freeholder and occupier of the building.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Catto, the architect.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information received. It was noted:

(i) The objectors had queried some of the correspondence in support of the application. In response the Planning Department had contacted all those who had submitted comments to clarify their position and some letters of support had been withdrawn.

(ii) The Council’s emerging Development Management Plan had been reviewed by the inspector and could now be given considerable weight in relation to this application. The judgement of the Development Control department was that the improvements proposed to the property justified the loss of the additional units. The restoration of the chimneys was seen to benefit the conservation area and building of townscape merit as it screened the rear dormer extension. The building would be a lower flood risk due to the fact that the proposals removed the bedrooms from the ground floor.

(iii) It was necessary to consider the property on the basis that the one bedroom flats could be converted into two bedroom flats without planning permission.

(iv) As the property was a building of townscape merit and within a conservation area the applicants were limited in the scope of sustainability proposals.

(v) There would be scope for soft landscaping at the front of the property, which was currently a gravel driveway, although it would be necessary to retain ample  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16d

Construction of two storey side extension and conversion of enlarged property to form two self contained dwellings.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Councillor Naylor declared that he had visited the site.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and clarified that this was not a Council application (as stated within the report). The applicant was Mr Peter Clancy.

No representations were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided and noted the following:

(i) Trees on the site had been removed previously. This was outside of the Council’s remit as the site was not within a conservation area and the trees were not protected.

(ii) The Council’s policy DM HO4 stated that outside amenity space for family sized dwellings should be 70m2, however the application provided approximately only 48m2 for the three bedroom property..

The Committee considered whether the application represented a disruption to the rhythm of the street scene and whether it represented an in-fill development. Members felt that the extension in the garden represented an overdevelopment of the site and meant that the property dominated the street scene due to it’s corner location. Members also considered that the design was not of adequate quality.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.      The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site in that the design, form and layout is not consistent with the prevailing character of the area and be visually disruptive to the existing pattern of development. As such the proposal would be contrary to policies DM DC 1 and DM HO 2 of the Development Management Plan, Local Development Framework.

2.      The proposal represents a cramped form of development on a restrictive corner site for which inadequate external amenity space is being provided. The proposal fails to meet the Council’s Residential Design Standards SPD 2010 and as such is contrary to Policy DM HO4 of the Development Management Plan, Local Development Framework.

Erection of side dormer roof extension.

Officer’s recommendation:  That a Certificate of

Lawful Development be GRANTED

Having declared prejudicial interests in the application, Councillors Morris and Nicholson withdrew from the room.

The Development Control Officer noted that there were no late amendments to the report.

No representations were heard.

It was clarified that the proposed dormer window was located on the north west facing roof slope which was the opposite side to where a previous dormer had been constructed.

It was RESOLVED:

That a Certificate of Lawful Development be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Installation of broadband cabinet – PCP041.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made the following amendment to the report:

·         The address of the proposal, as stated on the agenda, is incorrect. It should be ‘Second Avenue, side of 310/314 Cowley Mansions’. All other references to the address should also be amended to reflect this.

Via the addendum, the Development Control Officer reported the receipt of further correspondence on the case:

·                     E-mail from Councillor Stockley, set out below:

“I write to express my concern of the location of this box compared to other areas possibly more suitable within the ward.  We have discussed this frequently on the phone and unfortunately I am on holiday and therefore unable to speak on behalf of these residents at the planning meeting this Thursday.  I write to raise the following issues and would appreciate that this is included in the addendum for the planning committee:

- Timelines:  According to the on-line council information this application was recived and stamped on 27th June.  I understand the council have to make a decision within 56 days to ensure this is not accepted by default.  However, due to the incorrect address on letters initially sent to residents it has meant these residents and home owners have not had the appropriate time to raise their concerns with their council.  I understand from discussion with you that to extend the timeline or put this decision on the next planning committee agenda would mean we would be outside the deadline and the application would be accepted by default.  However, by my calculation, 56 days from 27th June takes us to 25th August and ask again if it is possible that this could be discussed at the meeting on the 18th August?

- Letters of objection: residents have informed me that their written letters have not been included on line and also are not included in the written report by Mattew Rees which goes to the planning committee.  Please can we ensure these letters are included in the addendum with this email?  I also understand from Zac Goldsmiths office that Matthew has agreed that letters of objection will be considered up until mid August.  However if the planning committee agree the application on the 28th July how will these letters be considered?  I am concerned that we are sending out a very dangerous impression to our residents.  How can we listen to their objections if delegated powers have already agreed an application?

- Having read the report detailed by Matthew Reese - residents do not believe that the current siting of this BT cabinet is in keeping with the street and believe it harms the street scene of occupiers of this road.  The design does not respect the local character or contribute positively to onlookers in this conservation area.

- On speaking to residents they are understanding that such boxes are neccessary, however have asked that the dept look at other areas where they feel it does not impact so greatly on residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16g

Installation of broadband cabinet – PCP007

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

 The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported that there were no amendments to the report.

There were no representation to be heard.

The Committee considered the proposed location of the cabinet and felt that there would be no significant harm to the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised tothe application subject to the condition and informative set out in the officer’s report.  

Installation of broadband cabinet – PCP001

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer stated that there were no amendments to the report.

There were no representation to be heard.

The Committee considered the proposed location of the cabinet and were satisfied that this location would not be harmful to the conservation area or the nearby buildings of townscape merit.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised tothe application subject to the condition and informative set out in the officer’s report.